[James]

We find a dice with the number 6 showing face up. There are three options:

1. The dice couldn’t have been in any other position.

2. It is in that position by chance.

3. It was intentionally placed in that position.

We know enough about dice and how they are able to behave to rule out (1) which leaves us with (2) and (3). As I shall argue in a moment, it doesn’t, but let’s assume that the dice being intentionally placed reduces the odds of our observed result to less than 1 in 6 . Should we assume it was deliberately placed just because it reduces the odds of the observed result? Obviously not. And that is the problem with the fine tuning argument. The reasoning doesn’t suddenly become valid just because the scenario or the numbers we are dealing with, change. If the reasoning is invalid here, then it is still invalid when applied to the constants.

But there is another problem with the fine tuning argument and we can show the issue, using the above example. Let’s assume that the dice could have been in another position (showing a 1 instead, a 2 instead and so on). If that is the case, then that is true regardless of whether (2) or (3) are true. It just means that if there is a designer, then that designer could have placed the dice showing a 1 instead, a 2 instead and so on. Assuming a designer makes the observed outcome no more likely than the scenario lacking one. The odds of the observed outcomes are still 1 in 6 (the prior odds of the designer choosing six where 1 in 6 and so on). And so it is with the fine tuning argument. If the constants could have been different and they were intentionally made the way they are then we are extremely lucky to find ourselves in a situation where the creator chose the constants he did, because he could have created constants hostile life (and done this in a myriad of different ways).

But this raises yet another problem because given a miracle working designer, we can’t claim to know that life would be impossible if the constants were different (that is an inherently naturalistic assumption that theists bring to the fine tuning argument to try and make it work)! Such a being is able to sustain life in situations that appear hostile to life from our point of view (eg, in the centre of furnaces and so on).

Not only do different odds (on their own) not allow us to pick between 2 and 3 on but the assumption of a designer (on its own) does nothing to change the odds and the dilemma between 2 and 3 is revealed to be a false one too!